Exhausts - Most stupid law ever

[DarkCaporaL]

I cant see those pictures at work coBRAA, but I'll check them at home.

Go read my previous post, I was updating it as you replied. Check the last part about the SAAQ inspection, it may be your situation (if so you can defend both points in court).

[cobrAA]

I cant see those pictures at work coBRAA, but I'll check them at home.

Go read my previous post, I was updating it as you replied. Check the last part about the SAAQ inspection, it may be your situation (if so you can defend both points in court).

thanks this should help!But aren't the SAAQ different than le code de la route?

[DarkCaporaL]

thanks this should help!But aren't the SAAQ different than le code de la route?

The SAAQ is the *ultimate* authority in enforcing the Highway Safety Code (Code de la Securite Routiere). They are the ones who delegate powers to police officers so they can enforce it.

TITLE PRELIMINARY
SCOPE AND DEFINITIONS

Scope.

1. This Code governs the use of vehicles on public highways and, in specified cases, on certain private roads and lands, and pedestrian traffic on public highways.


Rules.


It establishes the rules relating to highway safety, to the registration of road vehicles, to licences and permits which are under the administration of the Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec, and to the control of highway transportation of persons and goods.

[DarkCaporaL]

DarkCaporal:

1. The Police Officer: he is the one who heard your car. He has the SUBJECTIVE perspective of thinking you car is louder than OEM.
We didn't get arrested for #94, We all got arrested for #258 because he did ''le test de la broche'' and realise that we are straight-pipe.

So we have to prove that the OEM GTR is free-flow. And if we do, their is no reason we wouldn't win no?

As for the experts: Is there a way to get our hand on the ''technical spec of the Skyline GTR'' selon le droit à l'information peut-être??

Just saw this post. Okay this is how this works.

You received a ticket under ARTICLE 258, which states your exhaust system does not comply with the REGULATIONS. So you have to look at the regulations. In this case, it's REGULATION 94, saying it's louder than OEM.

What the prosecution has to do to find you guilty is show 2 things:
1. Your exhaust system has been modified from the OEM one.
2. Your exhaust system has to be louder than the OEM one.

#1 is easy to prove. They use OEM spec sheets and such.

The "test de la broche" is only used to prove #2. The prosecution uses it to show that there are no restrictions, and IF your original OEM exhaust did have restrictions, they use this proof to more or less assume your exhaust would be louder. Courts have accepted this method. The biggest evidence here, is if the officer can credibly say that he has heard an OEM version of the specific vehicle, and that yours is definetly louder.

BUT, if you can show that the OEM system was free-flow, it eliminates the "test de la broche" evidence, which is no longer useful to the prosecution. But you also need to eliminate the officer's testimony (which will be that your car is louder). In our case, it's a bit easier since our cars are not from Canada, and it's therefore VERY unlikely he has ever heard an OEM Skyline. Plus, the officer's view is SUBJECTIVE, which can easily be crushed with a few well placed arguments.

This is considering your exhaust has been changed AFTER it was inspected by the SAAQ. If not, then you can use the previous argument I posted earlier. (still come prepared with both arguments to court though).

[archaeic_bloke]

"right click* save image as..." to folder = "proof for exhaust ticket"

LOL thanks so much buddy! thats the perfect picture to prove my point.

my car passed inspection with the OEM exhaust, but im not sure wether i will just say "its the same exhaust as always" and show my passed certification, or i will say i changed it after the inspection for what ever reason, and it STILL meets regulations.

which do u guys think is better? im hesitant to lie in court, but if its the difference between win or lose.... y`know

[cobrAA]

Okay next question.

How can I prove that I never changed my exhaust since the day I passed the inspection because I never did. My skyline came with that ehxaust.

[cobrAA]

"right click* save image as..." to folder = "proof for exhaust ticket"

LOL thanks so much buddy! thats the perfect picture to prove my point.

my car passed inspection with the OEM exhaust, but im not sure wether i will just say "its the same exhaust as always" and show my passed certification, or i will say i changed it after the inspection for what ever reason, and it STILL meets regulations.

which do u guys think is better? im hesitant to lie in court, but if its the difference between win or lose.... y`know

Really?? Those pictures were taking from your exhaust lol. You never thought about checking the GTR manual?:biggrin:

[DarkCaporaL]

Okay next question.

How can I prove that I never changed my exhaust since the day I passed the inspection because I never did. My skyline came with that ehxaust.

That's a bit trickier. In the court case, the guy only brought in his proof of inspection with his inspection sheet and said his argument to the judge. I dont think he had any dated pictures or anything in the likes.

In these cases, it's then falls on the judge to believe you or not, so you have to ensure you appear to be a credible person.

Although its up to the prosecution to prove otherwise, you still have to be able to support your arguments somehow. (in this case, it was the mechanical inspection sheets).

The defence in this case, is that you have to show that you acted like a reasonable person, and that you actually though your car was legal. And in the same situation as you, a reasonable person would of done the same thing. By having your mechanical inspection done, and having the certified paper from the SAAQ saying your car meets all norms of the Highway Safety Act, then any reasonable person in your situation would of though their car was totally legal.

This is the major flaw in the SAAQ's inspection system, because they dont do exhaust verifications. And it's coming back to bite them in the ass, because they are supposed to be the ones to do this, NOT the officer stopping you on the side of the road (he is only exercising his delegated power, which are the SAAQ's powers). If you think about it, how does it make sense to get your car inspected, they say it's perfectly legal to drive on the road, and a week later you get stopped by a lower authority exercising the same law telling you the opposite!?

[DarkCaporaL]

^^ cobrAA, read this, brand spanking new case I linked earlier (August 26, 2009):

PREUVE DU DÉFENDEUR

[12] Le Tribunal retient du témoignage de monsieur Tremblay que son véhicule n’a subi aucune modification depuis l’examen de vérification mécanique effectué par la SAAQ le 6 décembre 2006.

[13] Le défendeur produit le certificat de vérification mécanique que lui a délivré la SAAQ aux termes de celle-ci. Il importe de citer textuellement l’attestation signée par le mécanicien autorisé de la SAAQ :

« Je certifie que les documents et l’ensemble de l’équipement du véhicule routier ont été vérifiés et qu’ils sont conformes au Code de la sécurité routière et à sa réglementation. »

[14] Ayant passé l’inspection de la SAAQ, le défendeur indique que son véhicule était selon lui conforme.

QUESTION EN LITIGE

[15] Le certificat de vérification mécanique émis par la SAAQ donne-t-il ouverture à l’excuse d’erreur provoquée par une personne en autorité compétente ?

ANALYSE
[17] Force est de conclure qu’en l’espèce, il ne pouvait y avoir meilleure autorité que la SAAQ pour se prononcer sur la conformité d’un véhicule aux normes du Code de la sécurité routière et de ses règlements. Comment peut-on objectivement reprocher à un justiciable de s’en remettre à la décision, on ne peut plus claire, du mécanicien mandaté par la SAAQ qui, faut-il le rappeler, a aussi le mandat d’élaborer les normes réglementaires du Code de la sécurité routière ?

[18] Dans les circonstances, tenant compte de la large portée de l’attestation du mécanicien de la SAAQ, une personne raisonnable, placée dans une situation semblable à celle du défendeur, aurait comme lui conclu que son véhicule répondait à toutes les normes, y compris celles portant sur les caractéristiques du système d’échappement.

POUR CES MOTIFS, LE TRIBUNAL :
[19] PRONONCE l’arrêt judiciaire de la poursuite.

http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=code+securite+routiere+258+echappement+mecanique&language=fr&searchTitle=Qu%C3%A9bec&path=/fr/qc/qccq/doc/2009/2009qccq7696/2009qccq7696.html

[cobrAA]

Hey, by the way, do you have any power/contact to get your hand on the OEM Spec sheet?? I'm very curious to see what the SAAQ think about the GTR spec.

Par le droit à l'information ??

[DarkCaporaL]

Hmm I'm not sure. I do not work with the access to information law, so I dont know the details of how it works. All I know is that is costs money to get that information, so if you're willing to pay....